[MD] For Bo

[Platt Holden]

> The point is many citations of Godel may indeed be abuses, but Godel
> is not irrelevant to explaining why moral philosophies can never be
> (logically) complete and consistent.
> Ian

Exactly. Or any other philosophies for that matter.
Platt

> On 8/22/08, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, Ron, SA,
> >
> > Godel's argument concerns any formal system of logic (not just
> > mathematics per se) ... but it doesn't change your point, since the
> > argument was part of the debate about whether mathematics and logic
> > resolve to the same thing.
> >
> > My son's recent dissertation was specifically on the subject of
> > Godel's incompleteness and/or inconsistency in relation to systems of
> > moral philosophy. Let me see if I can dig you out a copy ...
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > On 8/22/08, Ron Kulp <RKulp at ebwalshinc.com> wrote:
> > > Ron:
> > > The fallacy, SA, is using a mathematical theorem to support
> > > a metaphysical understanding. It supposes a cap on knowledge
> > > and intellect when it is only a rarely used and one of many,
> > > methods of reasoning.
> > >
> > >
> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > > Archives:
> > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> > >
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/